Why does jesus have to be god? I thought it made sense that jesus is the son of god anointed with the holy spook. That would make the trinity wouldn’t it? I have no idea who made it all complicated.. I guess its Johns fault. Perhaps he and Matt should have compared notes.

And it's pretty ballsy of Matt to claim that at 3 in the afternoon jesus said something. Not sometime during the day, not around late afternoon... NO IT WAS 3PM!! And people laugh when scientologist claim to know the name of the alien that created humans or whatever their silly claim is. 3pm bitches.

Matt is by far the best book of all the new testament books. It's almost as if he just sat down and was like "this is going to be epic!"

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Logged

I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

I have a thread here showing that John 1:1 cannot mean Jesus.

but what it boils down to is that Jesus would have been non-existent "in the beginning" as there is no need for a savior for human kind as no sin has been committed. Also, it makes no sense for a god to have a son, really think about that, how does that work with them both being eternal. That is an obvious remnant of their pagan history. Also, having a son implied there is a mother. Again supporting the notion that this was just their pagan religion.

You have to understand that just because you can type it/say it doesnt mean it makes any sense what-so-ever. Its not that we atheists dont understand what is being said, its that whats being said is ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense.

I doubt I can make any of you understand.....I have to admit I don't understand how it works.....

I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

My apologies: but if this is a topic that YOU don't understand, how can you expect to be able to share verse to enable US to understand? If the teacher doesn't get it, what hope is there for those he is trying to enlighten?

Just another angle here but why only one child. A god must have known that the telephone, film cameras, internet etc were still a couple of thousand years off so why not send a dozen children down and have them spread out over the planet a bit more? Not very smart to have one child in one place and then hope that man can accurately remember all the events, write them all down and then spread the word to the whole planet.

Just another angle here but why only one child. A god must have known that the telephone, film cameras, internet etc were still a couple of thousand years off so why not send a dozen children down and have them spread out over the planet a bit more? Not very smart to have one child in one place and then hope that man can accurately remember all the events, write them all down and then spread the word to the whole planet.

One child would make sense if that child didn't perform miracles and then disappear.If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, who wouldn't believe him?

Just another angle here but why only one child. A god must have known that the telephone, film cameras, internet etc were still a couple of thousand years off so why not send a dozen children down and have them spread out over the planet a bit more? Not very smart to have one child in one place and then hope that man can accurately remember all the events, write them all down and then spread the word to the whole planet.

One child would make sense if that child didn't perform miracles and then disappear.If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, who wouldn't believe him?

<Raises hand>

Me. He'd still be indistinguishable from an advanced, deceptive alien lifeform. Just because he says he's God doesn't mean I'm going to take his word for it - that's something he needs to demonstrate, which he couldn't.

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

One child would make sense if that child didn't perform miracles and then disappear.If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, who wouldn't believe him?

<Raises hand>

Me. He'd still be indistinguishable from an advanced, deceptive alien lifeform. Just because he says he's God doesn't mean I'm going to take his word for it -

I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

I have a thread here showing that John 1:1 cannot mean Jesus.

but what it boils down to is that Jesus would have been non-existent "in the beginning" as there is no need for a savior for human kind as no sin has been committed. Also, it makes no sense for a god to have a son, really think about that, how does that work with them both being eternal. That is an obvious remnant of their pagan history. Also, having a son implied there is a mother. Again supporting the notion that this was just their pagan religion.

You have to understand that just because you can type it/say it doesnt mean it makes any sense what-so-ever. Its not that we atheists dont understand what is being said, its that whats being said is ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense.

also your John 1:1 thread. Be careful. I'm almost positive that it was written by Mormons or Jahova witness. Neither are Christian. that being said I would read it if you gave the link.

I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Here's a thought for you: Why not look at this from the other side of the fence? If YHWH is truly nothing more than a man-made idea, that very clearly, simply, and succinctly explains the entire problem. Is it really that difficult for you to treat the problem using the most obvious and simple explanation? If there was a man named Jesus (which I doubt was his actual name), then why guess that he was more than a man based solely on pieces of ancient writings that have no evidence other than someone said so?

Having demonstrated a life span that is much longer than a human lifespan and an ability to get better after being killed would you be more willing to view a demonstration with an open mind?

Why are such occurrences limited to God and not to advanced aliens? It still offers no distinction between the two. I'd say that's keeping your options open and not punting for one over the other.

They're not really. The Arthur C Clarke addage[1] comes into play here. I suppose I should have said

"If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, would you not be more inclined to believe him, or at least warrant further investigation into his claims.?

They're not really. The Arthur C Clarke addage[1] comes into play here. I suppose I should have said

"If jesus were still around now with holes and all, and had been evident all through the ages, would you not be more inclined to believe him, or at least warrant further investigation into his claims.?

No, I wouldn't feel more inclined to believe him, but further investigation would be a no brainer, to which you could then potentially forge a belief from.

What he is claiming though is beyond the realm of investigation. How does one demonstrate that they exist outside of nature from inside nature? An alien claim is different, as that can (generally) be attributed to something inside nature.

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

What he is claiming though is beyond the realm of investigation. How does one demonstrate that they exist outside of nature from inside nature? An alien claim is different, as that can (generally) be attributed to something inside nature.

Perhaps more pertinently: what test could they pass to prove that the consequences of believing in them (or not) are true?

On Earth, we see multi-billionnaire atheist with fantastic lives, while the poorest and most miserable countries in the world have the highest levels of belief. We're also regularly told by believers that belief will not necessarily bring you a better life here (right before they swear blind it does). Certainly the evidence is that if the Jesus under discussion was around today, we might believe in him, or we might not, but it would not necessarily affect our lives one way or the other.

The true "worth" of belief comes in what one gains or loses in the alleged afterlife. And what test could this Jesus pass to prove that there was an afterlife in the first place, let alone whether belief (or not) in him would give you a better place in the hypothetical afterlife?

There is also no way the character could prove that he was the ultimate creator of everything. Holes in the hand, walking on water, water into booze, could all maybe convince me he was the character written of in the Bible.....he'd tick all the boxes. But does any of that mean that he or his father/brother/other-half-of-the-gestalt actually created the universe, as opposed to simply being powerful and with enough longevity to have been around before mankind and thus able to make up any story they wanted?

Point being: there seems to be NO test that Jesus or Yahweh could pass today to convince most of us that there is a long-term benefit to worshipping them, nor that there is any true reason to be grateful to them at all. The chief test of a benevolent god - is life getting better NOW for the people he claims to value most - is clearly and demonstrably failing, at least until such time as the Catch-22 is resolved to determine exactly which alleged group really ARE his chosen people.

So I'm left with the conclusion that belief in a particular god must indeed be solely and exactly that - a belief, a faith, a wishful and hopeful thought that one would want to be true but which one can in no way demonstrate or prove, even so far as a "clearly most likely".

Which unfortunately means that NO faith is any more - or less - likely than the next one on the list, and the whole shebang comes down to which particular fable one feels most comfortable with. SPAG is indeed the only conceivable reason for choosing a particular faith.

Maybe we should cut the SPAGgers more slack? They are after all only taking the most logical path?

also your John 1:1 thread. Be careful. I'm almost positive that it was written by Mormons or Jahova witness. Neither are Christian. that being said I would read it if you gave the link.

I see, so you are the One who decides who is and who isnt Christian? I see. I know Christians who would claim YOU are not the Christian. That leaves us at an impasse. How do we determine who is the Christian? Is there a set of criteria? Who made the criteria? Where is it located? How can we be sure that is the correct criteria? And assuming you are right, why do so many people have it wrong?

And my John 1:1 thread was not written by Mormons or JW's... it was written by me and other contributors here.

I'll try this one. Although there are many Christians that discuss the same thing. Many That don't get it. Denominations have formed and split over this very question. I doubt I can make any of you understand. It's a tough concept. I have to admit I don't understand how it works, but the bible teaches it so I accept it. Anyway, here goes. 3in one and one in 3. Jesus is both God AND The Son of God. John 1:1 in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. john 1:14 The Word became flesh that He may dwell among us.Jesus is The Word. The son is the Son. The Father is the Father. Yet both are God. they are separate and distinct individuals. The word was/is both with God and IS God.I could share and compare other verses if this is a topic you truly wish to understand. true or not is up to you of course.

Harbinger,

If you want to understand this - as far as it is possible to do so anyway- you are going to have to study some of the early history of the church, a specialty called Patristics (Fathers of the Church). Loosely....

Jesus, while on the earth is reported in the gospels as reject9ing the title of Son of God. Now one can take the study of titles of Jesus a bit too far and make too big a thing out of them but I think the gospel writers showing the Jesus rejected that title measn there is something to note.

The Early Church was born, so says Luke, on the basis of the Resurrectoin and so on of Jesus. The thing was that the people were not that happy for Jesus to be seen as a man at all - to have risen from the dead made him a god. We can find this in the various interactions with the risen Jesus in the gospels and, more importantly, in John 1 where Jesus seems to be indentified with god.

The problem was that the Jewish religion was montheistic and the the leaders of the new religion wanted to retain that yet there was the fact that everyone was seeing Jesus as god and worshipping him. Add that to the gospels referring to the sending of the holy spirit in personl terms and there in the bible are the three persons that are, today called the trinity. Getting there was not that easy though.

The first few hundred years of the church had a constant struggle going on to expplain how there would be one god yet three persons - after all to an outsider that's plainly just 3 gods. All sorts of idea were tried and condemned (read a book on Patristics if you are interested in the details)

Finally in the early 300's came along a priest in Alexandria who claimed the Jesus was not pre-existent but part of creation, although an exalted one. His followers had the slogan 'there was when he was not' whicyh is a lot more catchy in Greek! Essentially, Jesus waas created being whose life had a beginning. This is a philosophical problem as if creation has to be forgiven then surely it is going to need something divine to do it and Aruis' Jesus was not divine.

In 325 in Nicea Emperor Constantine arranged a meeting of all the bishops and one of the things they did was to settle this matter and the Nicean Creed the agreed used all biblical language with the exception of 'of one substance with the father' (technically homoousios) Substance is a techincal term in Aristotelian philosophy and means the root or gorudn of what something is as disticnt from what it appears to be. Now since the father, the son and the holy ghost were or the same substance it meant that there was onely one godhead but still three persons. That definition is whaat has stuck ever since (apart from the JW's and the Mormons anyway.

There is one problem, though. This whole definition has really only re-stated the problem of the three persons and one god rather than solved anything but I guess solving things would make priests redundant and that would never do!

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Being the resident ex-JW here, we were taught that we were the only true Christians on the planet. Like, where in the bible does it say to celebrate Jesus' birthday? Huh? And what's with all the pagan decorating of eggs and trees? And why all the hanging dead images of Jesus around the house? None of that in the bible.

And as for all this new-fangled science that so-called modern Christians accept, if it is not in the bible we did not believe it. None of this "Jesus riding on a dinosaur" creationist crap. There were no dinosaurs! No evolution, either. Garden of Eden, baby, all the way. Fossils and DNA are just lies made up by Satan to fool the gullible. No blood transfusions. No "Christian" rock music. And, yes, women should shut up in church.

If any of this does not sit well with you, then you are no Christian.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?